Carr v. Nunez

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the “stigma” associated with a second conviction along with an extra $50 special assessment constitutes prejudice sufficient to affect “substantial rights,” even if the second conviction does not result in any additional time in prison
• holding evidence insufficient when defendant sold drugs to informant, mentioned that drugs were provided by someone else, but gave no specific indica- tion of exact nature of that transaction or quantity of drugs involved
• finding no prejudicial spillover where the ostensible prejudice to the appellant resulted from evidence that was admissible on one of the remaining counts
• “To be liable for distribution, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant ‘knowingly and intentionally * * * distributed * * * a controlled substance.’ ”
• “Without more, the mere buyer-seller relationship.. .is insufficient to establish a conspiracy.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).